N.Y Court rules in photographers favor . . .

[gahspidy]

There was an interesting piece of news yesterday ( Feb. 14th ) in the N.Y. Post. A lawsuit was brought up against a photographer ( Philip-Lorca diCorcia) who had taken a photo ( head shot) of an Orthodox Jew near times square without any consent, and had sold several large prints for tens of thousands of dollars at a Gallery showing in Chelsea. The exhibit was called "Heads" and featured seventeen large prints of random headshots of different people from several different countries.
Manhattan Supreme court justice Judith Gische ruled that the headshot showing Nussenzweig, with a white beard, black hat , and black coat is art-- even though the photographer took the picture surreptitiously near times square in 2001, and sold 10 prints for thousands of dollars. ( 10 - 30 thousand per print)
New Yorks right -to -privacy laws prohibit the use of someones likeness for commercial purposes without the persons consent. But if the likeness is deemed to be art, the commerce restrictions do not apply.
This opens up a very large gray area to interpretation. This ruling lets me feel that if I were to take photos of people on the street, and exhibited them as a series in a gallery type setting, I would have no problems with legal issues of right to privacy. As long as it is being presented and/sold as art.
Interesting . . . so , I may awake my "sleeping man" shot after all . . .